"We humans should not destroy the living planet."

According to a recent report by the WWF, this is exactly what we are doing: since 1970 the average size of animal populationsA population here is not the sum total of the species but a defined group of the same species observed by a scientist. has dropped by 68%.

While this average doesn't mean that for every three animals, two have gone, it is still a shocking statistic. The numbers are grim. Of mammal biomassThe total weight of a set of organisms (although the word is also used to describe a kind of energy production in which plant and animal remains are used as fuel). on Earth, 96% is now composed of humans, livestock, and pets. Wild animals are being driven ever closer to extinction.

But who, or what, is doing the driving? The report names "changes in lands and sea use" and "species overexploitation" as the main culprits.

That means that the way we farm, fish and build is unsustainable. Researchers say humans use too many pesticides to cultivate too few crops; overfish the seas; cut down too many trees; and generally take up too much space.

Even our own lives are at stake. As insects die, plants will be left unpollinated, threatening food security and causing the release of more carbon. This in turn will trigger more climate change, killing even more animals.

Experts warn that this kind of feedback loop could be devastating.

Some scientists call our present era the "AnthropoceneThe term was coined in the 1980s, but became more common in the last decade, popularised by the Dutch climate scientist Paul J Crutzen. It is new name alluding to the current geological epoch, echoing the names given to earlier epochs, such as Pleistocene, and the Anthropocene's predecessor, the Holocene. The word comes from the Greek "anthropos", meaning Man, and "-cene", meaning new. Most geologists, however, would say we are still in the Holocene.", the era when humans are then prime moverUsed to mean the chief cause or the person responsible for something happening, the term derives from the Greek philosopher Aristotle's speculation on the first cause of all things. of ecosystems.

But does thinking this way mask what the problem is, and how to solve it?

One way of framing the crisis has been to suggest that, worldwide, people have failed to value nature: they have exploited it without considering the long-term consequences.

A case in point may be what has been called "the tragedy of the commons". When no individual bears the cost of destroying wild animal habitats, everyone will act without regard for the common good.

Perhaps, as some have recently argued, the solution lies in incorporating nature into humans' economic thinking. Putting a price tag on biodiversity might ensure people keep environmental costs in mind.

Others, however, claim that regarding the problem as a human failing spreads responsibility too thin. People in developed countries, they say, benefit much more from the current global economy than people in developing countries. If the benefit is uneven, how fair is it to share the blame?

These critics blame the economic system, capitalism, and the wealthy who benefit from it. Some have even suggested naming our era, not the Anthropocene but the "Capitalocene". It is the search for profit that harms biodiversity, they say, and there is nothing natural about that.

All agree that the time for action is now. As the window for it closes, naming the problem is only a first step. But it could determine whether we head down the right path or keep trampling on the living world.

It's called the Anthropocene for a reason, say some. They can point to the prehistoric destruction of mammoths and the present extinctions as part of a continuous species-wide short-sightedness. Even communist Soviet Union killed all the fish in the Oka River in 1965. Short-termism is natural, even if it has disastrous consequences for nature, and we all have to do our part in combating it.

Some are more to blame than others, goes the reply. The global economic order has been constructed to benefit the wealthy and to extract resources from the poorest countries. It is this order, for example, that drives overfishing while some of those fishermen, as in Thailand, are not even paid. By blaming all of humanity, we naturalise these injustices, and risk making our solutions to environmental catastrophe inhumane.